You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
LTC(Ret) Allen West: Here's the REAL Reason Obama Sent Troops to Syria
2015-11-02
[Allen West] We predicted earlier this week President Obama's hand would be forced by SecDef Ash Carter's statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And so it's happened. Yesterday, Barack Obama announced we're sending in a force to fight ISIS -- 50 U.S. Special Operations warriors.

As reported by Fox News:

President Obama has authorized sending dozens of Special Operations Forces to Syria to help advise local ground troops and coalition efforts in the fight against the Islamic State, officials said Friday.

The decision comes after administration officials earlier this week said they were looking at moving U.S. troops closer to the front lines in the anti-ISIS fight, as part of a broader effort to recharge the struggling campaign.

The deployment marks the first time U.S. troops will be working openly on the ground in Syria. A senior administration official called it a "small" deployment, involving "fewer than 50" Special Ops Forces to northern Syria.

Several other steps were also announced Friday, including a new potential deployment to Iraq.

According to the official, the administration is working with the Iraqi government to set up a "Special Operations Force (SOF) task force to further enhance our ability to target ISIL leaders and networks." The official also says the U.S. will be sending additional aircraft, including F-15 fighters and A-10s, to the Incirlik air base in Turkey.

I'm confused. Whom, exactly, are these special operations forces supposed to "advise" in Syria -- the four to five fellas remaining out of the 54 that were trained with $45 million of taxpayer funds? And does anyone realize the complexity of the Syrian battlespace? You've got Russian ground troops along with Russian fighter and helicopter attack forces; Iranian Quds forces; Hezbollah; and, as we shared with you, Cuban special operations forces. That, along with Al Nusra Front (al-Qaeda affiliated) and ISIS fighters.

The Syrian rebels who were trained and armed are being decimated by the Russian-backed force. Does anyone know the Russian troop strength on the ground in Syria?

Oh and why did we just tell the enemy we're sending 50 troops into that zone? There's a reason why the Obama administration makes such pronouncements: the facade of doing something when nothing will be done.

ISIS has not been degraded, destroyed or defeated, and I can't fathom how a deployment of 50 or so -- what happened to the previous groups deployed? -- will make a difference. I completely understand deploying F-15s and A-10s into the theater, but if our troops are only there to advise, then who's calling in the strikes?

For those who understand history, this is how the morass that came to be known as Vietnam began -- U.S. Army Special Forces advisors. Matter of fact, President Kennedy created the U.S. Special Forces just for this mission.

Ladies and Gents, we're way beyond Foreign Internal Defense (FID). The mission for special operators is now direct action and we can't achieve any goals and objectives with 50 warriors on the ground. Mind you, they're exceptional, but in the calculus of the battlefield and offensive operations, one needs a 3:1 ratio. In Vietnam, we even had a serious technological advantage over the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), but it didn't matter in the end.
Posted by:Besoeker

#18  A mighty 25 US SpecOps each to Syria + Iraq, GOING AFTER THE ISIS ALA THE BAMMER + US SECSTATE JOHN KERRY BY N-O-T GOING AFTER THE ISIS???

* BIGNEWSNETWORK > [VOA News] WHITE HOUSE: NO COMBAT MISSIONS FOR US TROOPS [SpecOps] IN SYRIA.

WH Deputy NatSecAdv Ben Rhodes.

* LUCIANNE > [NY Post] CHINA TAKES OVER THE SEA, AND "BAMLET" [POTUS Obama = "Hamlet"] DITHERS - AGAIN.

"TO BE, ... OR NOT TO BE" - WEHELL, WHADDYA KNOW, TIME TO GO GOLFING!

* TOPIX > THANKS TO OBAMA'S WEAK/MILD RESPONSE, ONLY MILITARY ACTION CAN DISLODGE BEIJING FROM CHINA SEA.

Ditto agz both Darth Vlad + Iran + ISIS, AL-Nusra Boyz in the ME???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2015-11-02 22:01  

#17  Bammer "minimalism" strikes again.

The DemoLefties must be wanting a Republican to win the WH next November, in order to clean up all of their geopol + econ messes so that the former can take credit for it.

GET READY TO SEE THE USoAMERIKA WILFULLY GIVE UP EAST ASIA + 1/2 OF THE PACIFIC TO CHINA.

BECUZ US-N-ONLY-THE-US UNILATERAL STRATEGIC RETREAT AROUND THE WORLD AREN'T JUST PURDY WORDS TO US-LED ANTI-US OWG GLOBIES.

D *** NG IT, AMERIKA DEMANDING ITS RIGHT TO PROUDLY SURRENDER LIKE FRANCE + BE BEHEADED BY THE HARD BOYZ IS FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2015-11-02 19:56  

#16  I'm afraid Russia hoisted the West on it's ISIS badguys petard.

The good news here is they may be helping the Kurds and it's Arab allies (code for Christians), but it's far from clear that's the case.
Posted by: phil_b   2015-11-02 19:48  

#15  I know Iowahawk is dozens of IQ points above mine, but it really does not matter who's side we're on as long as we are killing ISIS members and leaders.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2015-11-02 18:35  

#14  It sounds more like a TCAV. Really amounting to a pre deployment cel. Probably an ODA and a slice of an ODB with an OGA guy or two. They will assess what is going on and how to bring SOF into the fight correctly. They will build the plan to bring in a JSOTF. Hopefully someone is trying to follow the proper model for bringing SOF into a fight like this.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2015-11-02 18:32  

#13  
Posted by: KBK   2015-11-02 18:19  

#12  The strategic goal of this projected deployment is make Baraq look good and 'tough' while not actually inflicting any harm on his friends.

Getting Americans Soldiers killed in the process he considers a bonus.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2015-11-02 17:49  

#11  More meddling in the Middle East? Because all the meddling we've done so far has worked out so well?

Kinda scary when you think that all of our nastiest wars in the last hundred or so years have been the result of Democrat presidents embarking on misguided military adventures.

Baraq still has a year or so to go. He could still get us into the shit. Just what we need on top of a $20 trillion federal debt.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2015-11-02 17:22  

#10  Vietnam was lost because we walked away. Vietnam was not won because Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon had no plan to win it.

What is 0bama's plan to defeat ISIS? (Deafening silence)
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2015-11-02 14:52  

#9  The strategic goal of this projected deployment is (please fill in)
Posted by: Grins Snese4215   2015-11-02 14:51  

#8  There better be some US air power in the neighborhood just to make sure that the Russians don't get any ideas.
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2015-11-02 14:45  

#7  they'll deploy behind a bright red line that will protect 'em. Baracky said so
Posted by: Frank G   2015-11-02 14:37  

#6  #5 Can they call in Russian air strikes?

Better question, can they avoid being hit by Russian air strikes?
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2015-11-02 14:05  

#5  Can they call in Russian air strikes?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2015-11-02 13:57  

#4  Vietnam was lost @ CBS.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy   2015-11-02 09:25  

#3  The 'unbelievably small' deployment of special operations forces to Syria

The answer is that the administration is trying to have it both ways. It is dedicating troops, but only the minimum necessary to establish a visible and credible presence. It's finally making public that American forces will conduct "direct action" missions on the ground in an effort to appear resolute, even though the US is known to have conducted raids into Syrian territory in the past. It is dedicating additional air assets to the region, but the amount of air strikes conducted over Syria has actually decreased since the beginning of Russia's bombing campaign. It is trying to keep its intervention "unbelievably small," while still adding touches of additional capabilities to an otherwise inadequate response.

Forty special operations troops may have been enough to make an impact in the fight against the ISIS of 2012, but not the ISIS of 2015. A pinprick force will only have a pinprick impact, that is, unless they are allowed to exercise the full range of capabilities that they have been trained to bring to bear.

The deployment of special operations forces to northern Syria is a public relations campaign and a last-gasp tactic masquerading as prudence and strategy.

What's needed in Syria is a real strategy, one that matches America's aims with its capabilities; a display of unequivocal strength instead of incrementalism and hesitation. The "unbelievably small" approach didn't work before, and as the conflict grows in complexity, there's no reason to believe that it will work now.
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2015-11-02 09:20  

#2  Viet Nam was lost in Congress.

We had the NVA and Charlie licked. Congress wouldn't let us close for the kill.
Posted by: Mystic   2015-11-02 08:55  

#1  THe Vietnam war was lost in Berkely not in Ke Sang.
Posted by: JFM   2015-11-02 07:54  

00:00